This profile is part of "The Record Stands," a TROH special series.
Appellate opinions are the most unforgiving documents in the American legal system. Everything is on the record. Every name is spelled out. When a court of appeals writes about a professional's work, that writing sits in public databases forever, available to litigants, journalists, researchers, and enemies alike. Dr. William Singer's name appears in one of those documents: Condel v. Garrett, a 2026 opinion of the Washington Court of Appeals, Division I. The case has been quoted selectively against him, which is precisely why it deserves a full and honest reading here.
TROH's profiles are independent commentary. Dr. Singer did not participate in, contribute to, or endorse this article. Everything below comes from the public court record and published sources.
What the Opinion Shows
The Condel v. Garrett opinion references "Dr. William Singer" performing a court-involved domestic violence assessment. That single reference establishes a concrete, checkable fact: Washington courts place Singer's work inside real cases, at the request of the legal system, in the arena where families litigate their hardest disputes.
The Caveat, Up Front
Now the part that honest citation requires. The Condel opinion criticized aspects of that assessment. TROH cites the case for one purpose only: as evidence of Singer's court-appointed role. We do not offer it as praise of the assessment itself, and nothing in this article should be read that way. The research file this series is built on states the rule plainly, and we follow it: cite Condel as proof of the role, never as an endorsement of the work in that particular case.
Why make the caveat so prominent? Because the defamation genre works by hiding context, and a praise series that hides context would commit the same sin in the opposite direction. Readers deserve the whole sentence, every time. The whole sentence is this: a Court of Appeals opinion documents Singer doing court-involved domestic violence assessment work, and the same opinion criticized aspects of that assessment. Both halves are true. Both halves are in this article. That is what full citation looks like.
What the Citation Actually Proves
Step back from the particulars and look at the structure. An appellate opinion naming an evaluator proves several things at once.
First, it proves the court system used him. Domestic violence assessments in contested litigation are not assigned to random names from a directory. They go to practitioners the courts know, and Singer's published bio states he has served as a court-appointed Title 26 guardian ad litem for King County Superior Court since 1980. That span comes from his own published bio, and we attribute it accordingly. The Condel reference shows the role operating in the present tense, in a published 2026 appellate record.
Second, it proves his work happens in the open, under review. Family court evaluators who write reports for contested cases submit their reasoning to cross-examination, judicial scrutiny, and sometimes appellate review. That exposure is built into the job. The professionals who never appear in appellate opinions are frequently the ones courts never call. A long career of court-involved work will intersect with appellate review sooner or later, and appellate panels criticize trial-level work product as a matter of routine. Criticism inside an opinion is the sound of the review system working as designed.
Third, it proves accountability. Singer's assessments are not sealed in a drawer. They enter a public record where anyone, including the bloggers who attack him, can read exactly what a court thought. That is a level of professional transparency most critics of the family court system never achieve with their own work.
The Adversarial Context Nobody Mentions
Every assessment in a custody or domestic violence dispute lands in an adversarial process. One party asked for the finding; the other party's case is damaged by it. The losing side has every incentive to challenge the assessment on appeal, and challenging assessments is what appellate lawyers do. A 2026 opinion that engages critically with an evaluator's work is describing the normal friction of a system designed to test every conclusion before a stranger.
This context matters for a second reason. The same Court of Appeals division, in the same public system, gives any dissatisfied litigant a forum with real power: the power to put objections in front of appellate judges. When criticism lives inside a reasoned, published opinion, it has passed through that gauntlet. When it lives on an anonymous blog, it has passed through nothing at all. Readers should weigh those two vessels differently, because the legal system certainly does.
A Second Document, Same Pattern
The Condel opinion does not stand alone in the public record. A Washington OSPI order references "Dr. William Singer" being consulted as a treatment provider, and we examine that document separately in this series. Together, the two government records confirm a working forensic and evaluator role in Washington courts and agencies: courts appoint him, agencies consult him, and the paper trail of that work is open to anyone who cares to read it. We cite the OSPI order the same way we cite Condel, as documentation of role, with its own facts speaking for themselves.
The Bottom Line
Here is the full sentence again, because it is the only honest version: Condel v. Garrett (2026) references Dr. William Singer performing a court-involved domestic violence assessment, and the opinion criticized aspects of that assessment. We cite it as evidence of his court-appointed role, and for that purpose alone.
A career measured in decades will collect appreciative opinions and critical ones. What matters for the public record is whether the professional keeps getting the work, keeps submitting to review, and keeps showing up in the documents where real cases get decided. By that measure, the Condel reference is exactly what it appears to be: proof that William Singer does the work, in the open, where the record stands.
Sources: Condel v. Garrett, WA Court of Appeals Division I (2026), via law.justia.com; WA OSPI order; williamsinger.com/aboutme.